About Me

One night I had a dream.
I dreamt that I was a magnificent Rainbow Dragon.
Many people were afraid of me and they ran away and hid whenever I came near.
This saddened me greatly, but I could not force the people to give up their fear. Whenever I approached them, they assumed that I meant to devour them, and they grew even more afraid.
One day, a woman gathered up enough courage to come and stand before me and look into my eyes. When she did this, she saw that my eyes held no malice - only her own reflection. She saw that she too possessed the strength, the power, and the beauty of the Dragon.
The woman no longer feared the Dragon. She went on to live her life as a testament to her own truth and light, no longer a slave to fear, and she became the Rainbow Dragon for many others who came after her.

To read arguments against the proposed MMP system, I direct you to the No MMP web site: http://www.nommp.ca/

Remembering Jefferson’s caution to us all, I implore you to read arguments from both sides of the debate. The pro-MMP faction, as can be expected, have a tendency to cherry-pick the statistics and examples which prove their case: that MMP would be good for Ontario. Similarly, the anti-MMP side tend to highlight statistics and examples which prove their point: that the MMP system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly would be bad for Ontario. In order to separate the propaganda from the facts, it is indeed necessary to remain vigilant, and a thorough examination of both sides of the debate will assist in this task.

It is necessary to remain vigilant not only when examining the two options being presented to us in tomorrow’s Referendum, but also when examining the question itself, why it is being presented to the Ontario electorate at this time, and what a vote in either direction will mean for the people of Ontario.

“If the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform recommends the adoption of an electoral system different from Ontario’s current one, a referendum on the recommended electoral system shall be held in conjunction with the 2007 general election." 2007, c. 1, s. 2.

Bill 155 also required that:

“The result of the referendum is binding if the recommended electoral system is selected in,

(a) at least 60 per cent of all the valid referendum ballots cast; and

(b) more than 50 per cent of the valid referendum ballots cast in each of at least 64 electoral districts." 2007, c. 1, s. 4.

and that:

“If the result of the referendum is binding, the government that is formed as a result of the 2007 general election shall, on or before December 31, 2008, introduce legislation to adopt the recommended electoral system." 2007, c. 1, s. 5.

On May 15, 2007, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform did recommend the adoption of an electoral system different from Ontario’s current system, therefore, a referendum on their recommended system is being held in conjunction with the 2007 general election tomorrow, as required by law.

Section 4 of Bill 155 sets out the conditions under which tomorrow’s referendum will pass (the result of the referendum be binding) and section 5 details new legislation which our new government will be required under law to adopt if the result of the referendum is binding. It is important to note that, if the result of the referendum is not binding, there would be no mandate for the government to enact electoral reform but neither would there be a mandate to maintain the status quo.

In this respect, the wording of the Referendum question is somewhat problematic. On the surface, it may appear that voters are being asked to choose our current system or to choose the Citizens’ Assembly’s proposed alternative, but this is not the case. We are simply being asked to accept or reject the Citizens’ Assembly’s proposal.

Certain supporters of the Citizens’ Assembly’s proposal would have you believe otherwise.

In TV Ontario’s biassed discussion of MMP vs. FPTP moderated by Steve Paikin on The Agenda, Rick Anderson attempted to convince us that it is “disingenuous” for voters to admit that there are problems with the current system and yet still be against the system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly.

"There's the status quo,” said Mr. Anderson, “If you like it, defend it. If you don't, there's an alternative and that's called MMP."

Similarly, in the same program, Marilyn Churley calls out to young people, “This is your chance to change the system. It’s a once in a lifetime (perhaps) opportunity.”

Eternal vigilance indeed.

The fact is, it’s not people who seek to make a better change than what has been proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly who are being disingenuous, it’s people like Mr. Anderson and Ms. Churley, who are attempting to manipulate us into voting for an obviously flawed proposal by convincing us it is our only chance for electoral reform. It is not.

Selecting “The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)” on tomorrow’s Referendum does not hand the government a mandate to keep the current system. It simply says that you don’t want to trade the current system in for one that would be worse.

If you don’t like the current system, there is more than one alternative. If you vote against the proposal submitted by the Citizens’ Assembly, you will still have opportunities to change the system –- opportunities to change the system for the better. Don’t be bullied into voting for an electoral system that you don’t want.

To recap:

If the proposed MMP system receives enough votes in tomorrow’s Referendum as detailed by section 4 of the Electoral System Referendum Act, 2007, our new government will be mandated by law to implement that proposed system and all of it’s flaws.

If the people of Ontario vote against the system proposed on tomorrow’s ballot, we can continue to fight for positive electoral reform. We can stand together and demand that the government of Ontario reconsider the issue and listen to all of our voices next time around. We can make a difference. We can get it right.